Legal Opinion · Dissent

Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Cunningham

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1973No. B-4061Published

1DissentPope, Justice

I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion of the majority which holds that a photograph is not a written communication and protected from discovery by the provisions of Rule 167. The majority opinion does not disclose whether it reaches its conclusion because a photograph is not written or because it is not a communication or both. Its only treatment of the subject is contained in its holding: “We hold that photographs are not written communications and are not within the terms of the Rule 167 proviso.”

The word, “photograph,” is a joinder of the Greek words, “photo,” meaning light…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. OrrTexas Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Whitford v. North State Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. DurkeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
  4. Texas Employers' Insurance v. CrowTexas Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Younger Bros., Inc. v. RossCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API